Systemic Perioperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Penile Prosthesis Implantation: A Systematic Review.
4 affiliations
- 1Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
- 2Department XIII, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.
- 3Department II of Microscopic Morphology, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.
- 4Department of Human Medicine, Bukovinian State Medical University, 2 Teatralna Square, 58002 Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
Abstract
Background and objectives
Penile prosthesis infection usually ends in device removal, whereas unnecessarily broad or prolonged prophylaxis causes toxicity and promotes resistance. We assessed whether the systemic perioperative antibacterial or antifungal strategy, dose or duration is associated with infection, infection-related explantation or reoperation or antimicrobial toxicity after primary or revision implantation.Materials and methods
PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 29 August 2026 using two complementary strategies that combined penile-prosthesis terms with antimicrobial-prophylaxis terms and, separately, with infection or explantation terms, without language or date limits, supplemented by related-article expansion and reference-list checking. Comparative primary studies were eligible. Risk of bias was appraised with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and random-effects models were fitted where independent cohorts reported compatible data.Results
Of 4947 records, 11 studies were included: one small randomised trial and ten non-randomised studies. The pooled crude frequency of infection or infection-related explantation was 2.50% (95% CI 1.78-3.50; I2 = 89%), a descriptive summary across heterogeneous outcome definitions rather than an estimate of the infection rate under any regimen. Postoperative oral antibiotics were not associated with lower risk (pooled odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.89-1.53). A higher or weight-based gentamicin dose did not reduce infection (pooled odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.26-2.18) but was associated with more acute kidney injury in the single study that reported comparative toxicity. Guideline-defined regimens carried higher adjusted risk in two overlapping cohorts and no difference in two others. Antifungal prophylaxis was associated with lower infection in two overlapping analyses but not in a revision-only cohort, an exploratory finding that has not been independently replicated. An explicit dose was reported by only three studies, a numerical duration by four and the interval between administration and incision by none, which limits comparison between regimens, and all non-randomised studies had serious risk of bias.Conclusions
Current evidence identifies no superior antibacterial regimen and does not support routine prolonged prophylaxis. The exploratory antifungal signal and the preliminary renal safety signal with weight-based gentamicin warrant prospective, standardised multicentre evaluation before either informs routine practice.
Related
- Rifaximin Versus Norfloxacin for Secondary Prophylaxis of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Missing-Data Sensitivity Analyses
- Non-Cardiac Surgery After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Perioperative Management and Outcomes from a Single Center
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Vascular Access–Optimized Perioperative Care Pathway for Temporary Pacemaker Implantation
- Anticoagulant Prophylaxis with Edoxaban for Asymptomatic Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis in Perioperative Hip Fracture Patients.
- Predictors of inappropriate perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis duration: a cohort study in Italy
BibTeX
@article{bratosin2026systemic,
title = {{Systemic Perioperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Penile Prosthesis Implantation: A Systematic Review.}},
author = {Felix Bratosin and Talida Georgiana Cut and Yuthik Nara and Dorin Novacescu},
journal = {Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.3390/antibiotics15100958},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42938699},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Systemic Perioperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Penile Prosthesis Implantation: A Systematic Review.
AU - Felix Bratosin
AU - Talida Georgiana Cut
AU - Yuthik Nara
AU - Dorin Novacescu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/28
JO - Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)
DO - 10.3390/antibiotics15100958
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42938699
AB - Background and objectives Penile prosthesis infection usually ends in device removal, whereas unnecessarily broad or prolonged prophylaxis causes toxicity and promotes resistance. We assessed whether the systemic perioperative antibacterial or antifungal strategy, dose or duration is associated with infection, infection-related explantation or reoperation or antimicrobial toxicity after primary or revision implantation.Materials and methods PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 29 August 2026 using two complementary strategies that combined penile-prosthesis terms with antimicrobial-prophylaxis terms and, separately, with infection or explantation terms, without language or date limits, supplemented by related-article expansion and reference-list checking. Comparative primary studies were eligible. Risk of bias was appraised with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and random-effects models were fitted where independent cohorts reported compatible data.Results Of 4947 records, 11 studies were included: one small randomised trial and ten non-randomised studies. The pooled crude frequency of infection or infection-related explantation was 2.50% (95% CI 1.78-3.50; I2 = 89%), a descriptive summary across heterogeneous outcome definitions rather than an estimate of the infection rate under any regimen. Postoperative oral antibiotics were not associated with lower risk (pooled odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.89-1.53). A higher or weight-based gentamicin dose did not reduce infection (pooled odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.26-2.18) but was associated with more acute kidney injury in the single study that reported comparative toxicity. Guideline-defined regimens carried higher adjusted risk in two overlapping cohorts and no difference in two others. Antifungal prophylaxis was associated with lower infection in two overlapping analyses but not in a revision-only cohort, an exploratory finding that has not been independently replicated. An explicit dose was reported by only three studies, a numerical duration by four and the interval between administration and incision by none, which limits comparison between regimens, and all non-randomised studies had serious risk of bias.Conclusions Current evidence identifies no superior antibacterial regimen and does not support routine prolonged prophylaxis. The exploratory antifungal signal and the preliminary renal safety signal with weight-based gentamicin warrant prospective, standardised multicentre evaluation before either informs routine practice.
SN - 2079-6382
ER -